Protestants: Could you please do us all a favor??

[josie_L]

That Catholics do not use the term “total depravity”. Rather, because of the fall of Adam, man cannot do anything out of supernatural love unless God gives him special grace to do so.

We do not believe in total depravity but a wounded nature which is basically man’s loss of original holiness. I expressly put those two points to make Semprereformada understand the difference between how we describe the effects of “original sin” and the way Calvinists do.

 

[SHW]

Even if you want to say god is a prescient deity (and can see the future). He then must have known, before creating Adam and Eve, that they would disobey him right? Why then did he create them anyway?

Right! He did know. He created them because He also knew that He was going to provide a way for them to repent and be reconciled to Him again. Second chances are possible with God because of His great love for us. (cf. Mark 10:27, John 3:16)

Moreover, at what point is god’s will really involved with anything under your paradigm? God does things merely because he knew he was going to do them. He’s a prisoner of his own foreknowledge (so you have the tail wagging the dog; and that’s just not how the bible presents god). This is the logical problem Augustine ran into … and although he initially took something akin to your view, he wound up rejecting it because of its logical absurdity (and of course the mountain of scripture that clearly abrogates the idea of election based on foreseen faith).

God’s Sovereign “will” (decision) to “create” mankind started “everything” into motion. I would call this a “willful” decision all His own. This is “no tail wagging the dog.” He knew the consequences of His decision to create before He created, but this did not deter Him from His decision. However, because of His foreknowledge, He did put “things” into place in order to “become the author of salvation to all who” would choose to “obey Him.” (cf. Hebrews 5:9)

First God chose to redeem us because He loved us. His decision to redeem us (reconcile us to Him) had absolutely nothing to do with the merits of our own works. However, once we are baptized and receive the merits of His redemption and are thereby reconciled to Him, then we either inherit eternal life or we do not inherit eternal life, based on our own free will choices.

How does the following Scripture work with your explanation of election?

1 Peter 1:2
elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ:

What criteria do you think He used to predestine to eternal life?

I believe Scripture:

1 Peter 1:17
And if you call on the Father, who without partiality judges according to each one’s work, conduct yourselves throughout the time of your stay here in fear;

John 5:28-30
Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice 29 and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation. 30 I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me.

 

[SemperReformada]

We do not believe in total depravity but a wounded nature which is basically man’s loss of original holiness. I expressly put those two points to make Semprereformada understand the difference between how we describe the effects of “original sin” and the way Calvinists do.

I don’t get it. What is the difference? CCC 406 says that the reformers taught that original sin destroyed mans freedom and the councils or Orange and Trent teach the same thing the reformers taught. Namely that man of his own accord can not choose God.

I’m really confused by your post.

 

[guanophore]

Can you show me in the Scriptures where Jesus says all baptized children are mine?p/quote]

All who are baptized are sealed by the HS, made members of His Body, the Church. They are clothed in Christ, which does not happen to those who do not belong to him (refer to parable of the wedding garment)
moondweller;5398540:

Unbelief in what?

The blood that bought him.

 A "*prodigal son*

" is still a son. HID’s unbelief proves he never was.

No, moon. We can clearly see from the parable of the prodigal that the one who walked away and squandered his inheritance was still a son.

Calling him home?

Yes. All those who have been made members of Christ are members of His One Body, the Church. Jesus only founded One Church, and home it it is where all are called.

Salvation is not a "return

" to anything.2 Cor 5:17 “Therefore if anyone is in Christ, {he is} a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.”

Once a person is made into a new creature, he can still spurn the blood that bought him, and stray from the faith. Those persons are to be returned if at all possible.

**Jude 22-23
22 And convince some, who doubt; 23 save some, by snatching them out of the fire; on some have mercy with fear, hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.
**

HID is an example of one who is presently in the fire, as a result of doubt. This is what happens to believers who stray from faith.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

but Calvin agrees with this (and so do all protestants). No one believes we’re guilty for Adam’s sin?

 

[PRmerger]

but Calvin agrees with this (and so do all protestants).

Well, then* they *agree with us.

 

[josie_L]

but Calvin agrees with this (and so do all protestants). No one believes we’re guilty for Adam’s sin?

Francis, I got this off the Vatican website please don’t tell me that they know less than you do on this matter? Calvin believed in total depravity whereas the Church believes in a wounded nature (which is what was described in my quote) and a sin-enslaved will instead of free will. It basically boils down to those five points of which I quoted earlier.

 

[josie_L]

I don’t get it. What is the difference? CCC 406 says that the reformers taught that original sin destroyed mans freedom and the councils or Orange and Trent teach the same thing the reformers taught. Namely that man of his own accord can not choose God.

I’m really confused by your post.

Do you agree with these five points:

1. Free will; that is, God allows people to choose him, and allows them to reject them. People always have the option. Thus election, if you believe it, must be an act of persuasion and not compulsion.
2. Co-operation; it is necessary for salvation for a man to cooperate with God’s grace. Man must continuously allow God’s grace to work in him. If at any point a man prevents this, he falls from grace.
3. Jesus died for all men, and his sacrifice has the potential of saving all, but his act did not automatically save anyone, only those who choose to accept him.
4. Man is born in a state of sin, and must be called by God in order to accept Him and thus receive the merits of Christ’s sacrifice.
5. God predestines no one to Hell. i.e. you can only believe in negative reprobation, not positive.

 

[guanophore]

[SIGN]AMEN[/SIGN]

*Saved *means just that: SAVED. The Epistles are written to those who ARE saved but within them are various warnings to those among them who have not yet committed to faith in Christ alone, but desire rather to be saved (a future, hopeful event) according to one’s merit.

This statement makes no sense at all, moon. You are correct, the epistles are written to believers. The warnings are for those who are in danger of falling away from the faith. These epistles were not available, as the are today, to those who have not made a commitment to Christ by faith. Perhaps you forget that the Church was persecuted for 300 years. The only ones who were allowed into the meetings were the baptized. Even catechumens,who were preparing for initiation, were not admitted to Mass, or were separated prior to Eucharist. The Church was constantly on guard against the likes of Saul of Tarsus.

It is true that there have always been those who desire to be saved by their own merit, but this has never been a teaching of the Catholic Church. When we pray that we be made worthy of the promises of Christ, it is a prayer to become sanctified by His grace.

Salvation has aspects that are past, present and future.

 "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, ***but that the world might be saved through Him***."[/indent]"*Saved through Him*" not a church.

You are trying to separate that which cannot be separated. Those who are members of Christ are members of His one Body, the Church.

1 Cor 6:15-20
15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I therefore take the **members of Christ **and make them members of a prostitute? Never! 16 Do you not know that he who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two shall become one flesh.” 17 But he who is united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. 18 Shun immorality. Every other sin which a man commits is outside the body; but the immoral man sins against his own body. 19 Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.

All the deeds done in the flesh affect the whole Body, because they are inseparable.

But rather it's the saved (and they know it) who make up Christ's church.  He came *to save* and the church He's presently building is made up of all those who ARE (since Pentecost); and they know it because they have embraced His GRACE *through faith*.

It is true that the saved make up Christ’s Church, which is His Body. This is why there is no salvation outside of the Church. All those who are in Christ have been joined to His One Body.

 

[SemperReformada]

Do you agree with these five points:

1. Free will; that is, God allows people to choose him, and allows them to reject them. People always have the option. Thus election, if you believe it, must be an act of persuasion and not compulsion.
2. Co-operation; it is necessary for salvation for a man to cooperate with God’s grace. Man must continuously allow God’s grace to work in him. If at any point a man prevents this, he falls from grace.
3. Jesus died for all men, and his sacrifice has the potential of saving all, but his act did not automatically save anyone, only those who choose to accept him.
4. Man is born in a state of sin, and must be called by God in order to accept Him and thus receive the merits of Christ’s sacrifice.
5. God predestines no one to Hell. i.e. you can only believe in negative reprobation, not positive.

Josie,

Let’s stick w/ one topic, the subject of total depravity.

Earlier you agreed that a man can not choose to follow God of his (the man’s) own power. That is pretty much total inability/total depravity in a nut shell.

 

[Peter_J]

It was a joke.

If it makes you feel any better, SHW, I got that it was a joke when you made it, but I still haven’t figured out what “so old it’s pathetic” means. (Actually, I’m not sure if that should make you feel better, or if it just shows that I’m not the sharpest hammer in the toolbox. Probably a little of both.)

P.S. Okay, but seriously, I’m reminded of another recent thread, where a poster told me that my saying that Protestantism isn’t “a different religion”, is evidence that I myself am not a real Catholic. You gotta love the internet.

 

[PRmerger]

Josie,

Let’s stick w/ one topic, the subject of total depravity.

Earlier you agreed that a man can not choose to follow God of his (the man’s) own power. That is pretty much total inability/total depravity in a nut shell.

Total depravity: source here

Despite its name, the doctrine of total depravity does not mean men are always and only sinful. Calvinists do not think we are as sinful as we possibly could be. They claim our free will has been injured by original sin to the point that, unless God gives us special grace, we cannot free ourselves from sin and choose to serve God in love. We might choose to serve him out of fear, but not out of unselfish love.[There is nothing wrong with serving out of godly fear. The Bible often uses fear of divine chastisement as a motivator. Love and a certain kind of fear do not exclude each other; a child may both love his parents and have a healthy fear of his parents’ discipline. But service based on fear only, being self-interested, does not please God in a supernatural way and does not receive a supernatural reward. Love is necessary to please God and receive rewards].

What would a Catholic think of this teaching? While he would not use the term “total depravity” to describe the doctrine,[That term is badly misleading, as even Calvinists acknowledge. For example, Calvinist theologian R.C. Sproul proposes the alternative term “radical corruption,” although this is not much better. Author Lorraine Boettner uses the much better term “total inability.”] he would actually agree with it. The accepted Catholic teaching is that, because of the fall of Adam, man cannot do anything out of supernatural love unless God gives him special grace to do so.**In Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma Ludwig Ott gives the following as a defined article of faith: “For every salutary act internal supernatural grace of God (gratia elevans) is absolutely necessary” **(Ott, 229). He goes on to cite the second Council of Orange, which stated that “as often as we do good God operates in us and with us, so that we may operate” (canon 9) and that “man does no good except that which God brings about” (canon 20). The Council of Trent solemnly condemned the proposition that “without the predisposing inspiration of the Holy Ghost and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be repentant as he ought, so that the grace of justification may be bestowed upon him” (Decree on Justification, canon 3). The Church teaches God’s grace is necessary to enable man to be lifted out of sin, display genuine supernatural virtues, and please God].

Thomas Aquinas declared that special grace is necessary for man to do any supernaturally good act, to love God, to fulfill God’s commandments, to gain eternal life, to prepare for salvation, to rise from sin, to avoid sin, and to persevere.[Summa Theologiae (hereafter ST) I:II:109:2-10].**

 

[SemperReformada]

Total depravity: source here

Despite its name, the doctrine of total depravity does not mean men are always and only sinful. Calvinists do not think we are as sinful as we possibly could be. They claim our free will has been injured by original sin to the point that, unless God gives us special grace, we cannot free ourselves from sin and choose to serve God in love. We might choose to serve him out of fear, but not out of unselfish love.[There is nothing wrong with serving out of godly fear. The Bible often uses fear of divine chastisement as a motivator. Love and a certain kind of fear do not exclude each other; a child may both love his parents and have a healthy fear of his parents’ discipline. But service based on fear only, being self-interested, does not please God in a supernatural way and does not receive a supernatural reward. Love is necessary to please God and receive rewards].

What would a Catholic think of this teaching? While he would not use the term “total depravity” to describe the doctrine,[That term is badly misleading, as even Calvinists acknowledge. For example, Calvinist theologian R.C. Sproul proposes the alternative term “radical corruption,” although this is not much better. Author Lorraine Boettner uses the much better term “total inability.”] he would actually agree with it. The accepted Catholic teaching is that, because of the fall of Adam, man cannot do anything out of supernatural love unless God gives him special grace to do so.**In Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma Ludwig Ott gives the following as a defined article of faith: “For every salutary act internal supernatural grace of God (gratia elevans) is absolutely necessary” ****(Ott, 229). He goes on to cite the **second Council of Orange, which stated that “as often as we do good God operates in us and with us, so that we may operate” (canon 9) and that “man does no good except that which God brings about” (canon 20). **The Council of Trent solemnly condemned the proposition that “without the predisposing inspiration of the Holy Ghost and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be repentant as he ought, so that the grace of justification may be bestowed upon him” (Decree on Justification, canon 3). The Church teaches God’s grace is necessary to enable man to be lifted out of sin, display genuine supernatural virtues, and please God].

Thomas Aquinas declared that special grace is necessary for man to do any supernaturally good act, to love God, to fulfill God’s commandments, to gain eternal life, to prepare for salvation, to rise from sin, to avoid sin, and to persevere.[Summa Theologiae (hereafter ST) I:II:109:2-10].

Thanks for posting that. I had read that a year or two back and couldn’t remember where I read it or who wrote it.

Sometimes I think we (Catholics and non-Catholics) feel we have to disagree no matter what. As you can tell, it doesn’t seem to me that we are all that far apart, if at all, on this subject.

 

[guanophore]

Oh but you do.The object of your faith IS your church and its sacraments - which you believe are means of your salvation.

You have contradicted yourself in your accusation, moon The object of Catholic faith is Christ. The Church and the sacraments are a means by which we can access the grace that saves us. They are not the “object”, but the “means”. They are a method, in the NT called “The Way”, but God is not restricted by them. He can save whoever He wants, however He likes. He gave us the Church and the Sacraments as sure means by which we can access sanctfying grace, so that we can be transformed into His image.

You cannot amplify that which is Perfect.

That depends upon your point of view. That which is perfect (God) can certainly be amplified to our human senses. For example, God revealed Himself to mankind in the person of Christ, and in Him that which is perfect is amplified so that our senses can perceive it better.

Col 1:15-20
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; 16 for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities - all things were created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent. 19 For in him all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell,

Christ makes divinity accessible to our human senses. His perfection is magnified through His flesh.

1 John 1:1-2
1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life - 2 the life was made manifest, and we saw it, and testify to it,

Sometimes humans need reality to be magnified in order to “see” it. It is like we need microbes magnified by a scope, since they are not visible to the naked eye.

 Nor can you amplify the Perfect by the imperfect.

This is simply an error. Of course God can use the imperfect to magnify Himself! He is seen more clearly through His saints. He does this by His grace. This is what He meant by being light and salt to the world.

"The writers of the N.T. would not recognize the exalted Mary of Catholicism. They knew nothing of a co-redeemer or a Queen in heaven.

I agree with you on this point. I don’t think the role of the Theotokos became manifest for some centuries. This is not a problem for Catholics, who also know that the NT did not become manifest until even later than that.

 

[guanophore]

The question was asked in the context of a “hope so” salvation.

As you have correctly noted, hope, as faith, is defined by where it is placed. It is not hope “so” but hope IN. We hope in Him who sacrificed Himself for us.

Jude 24-25

24 Now to him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you without blemish before the presence of his glory with rejoicing, 25 to the only God, our Savior through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and for ever. Amen.

We have this hope, not because of anything that we do, but because HE IS ABLE.

 

[guanophore]

In both of those instances it says all those in the household believed. Catholicism simply asserts that every household has infants.

No, moon, you are bearing false witness against the Catholic Church again. It seems that your resentment runs so deep that you cannot restrain yourself from this activity.

Catholicism asserts that “entire households” do have the potential, indeed the probability to contain infants and children. In the case of the NT accounts, slaves also, many of whom were also baptized at the time that the master of the house was.

That’s a Catholic doctrine, not a Biblical one. In Scripture those who believed were subsequently baptized. Baptizing an infant doesn’t make it a believer.

It is true that baptizing an infant does not make him a believer. He must be raised in the faith, and at some point, choose to follow the covenant into which he has been brought.

The Apostles taught that baptism replaced circumcision as the entrance rite into the new Covenant. Just as infants were not withheld from circumcision, so the Apostles did not withhold baptism from infants and children.

Acts 2:39
39 For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him."

Just as for children born into a Jewish home, the presumption was made that children born to believers would be brought up in the faith. What you are saying is true, though, and plenty of Jews abandoned the faith into which they were circumcised. Their apostasy did not make them any less circumcised, though.

Gal 3:26 "For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus."Scripture does not recognize your “production line” sonship.

No. Baptism is not a “production line” of sonship. It is the sealing of a covenant. The only “production” involved would be the gift of life that God gives to the couple.

Yes, that is the Catholic stance, but not a Biblical one (Jn. 5:24; 1 Jn. 5:9-15).

This is one of the problems with attempting to derive doctrine from scripture in a vacuum that is separated from the Apostolic Teaching. All kinds of errors result.

 In Jn. 5:24 Jesus says concerning the *believer* that he does not come into judgment and has passed out of death into life.  In 1 Jn. 5:9-15 John is writing so that they might know that they have eternal life; the LIFE the true believer has passed into through faith in Christ - His resurrected life, which is eternal.

Yes. We enter into eternal life in baptism, by grace, through faith. We don’t ever have to be separated from this state of grace. However, many are, and must return to it, so that they can again know. Sin causes separation from God. The nature of sin does not change, just because we have access to eternal life. Those who still sin will die in their sins without His cleansing grace.

He never had either through baptism.

This is your opinion, which happens to contradict the Apostolic Teaching.

Both are entered into through personal faith in the once crucified, now resurrected and glorified Christ - not water.

The two are not separated, Moon. no one is baptised without a profession of faith. The water is the means by which the saving blood of Chrsit is applied to us.

1 Peter 3:20-22
when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were** saved through water**. 21 **Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, **not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him.

It was not the water that saved Noah, but God’s grace. Similarly, we are saved “through” the water, in which we are buried with Christ.

HID believes the whole idea of salvation is foolishness - a non-reality.

Yes. however, he is here, so something (or someone?) is drawing him, just like you are drawn. You have been bringing the same old tired arguements here for years, but you cannot seem to separate yourself from us.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Francis, I got this off the Vatican website please don’t tell me that they know less than you do on this matter? Calvin believed in total depravity whereas the Church believes in a wounded nature (which is what was described in my quote) and a sin-enslaved will instead of free will. It basically boils down to those five points of which I quoted earlier.

my point is when you understand the distinctions they draw … it’s a matter of nuance (it’s not as substantial as you infer). As I said b4 the differences between confessional protestants and Catholics have narrowed over the last several centuries. I guess conflict has refined and sharpened the doctrine of both sides?

I love irony …

 

[josie_L]

Josie,

Let’s stick w/ one topic, the subject of total depravity.

Earlier you agreed that a man can not choose to follow God of his (the man’s) own power. That is pretty much total inability/total depravity in a nut shell.

I misunderstood you. I only realized this after I had posted (I think I was misled by the word “morally” I thought you were asking me if we could merit grace which I don’t believe). But anyways, total depravity is more than that it states that we cannot do good whatsoever apart from grace. Please let me quote part of an article I found that sums up my objections to total depravity:

The first element of John Calvin’s classic TULIP summary is the idea of total depravity. The proposal includes the following; human rebellion against God is total, and apart from the grace of God there is no delight in the holiness of God, and there is no glad submission to the sovereign authority of God; in this total rebellion everything humanity does is sin; furthermore, man’s inability to desist from this rebellion, to submit to God and do good is total; and this rebellion is totally deserving of eternal punishment.

Although Calvin’s innovation allegedly derives from the Augustinian doctrine of original sin, Calvin’s conclusions do not reflect real allegiance to some of Augustine’s most basic affirmations of the doctrines of creation and grace. Over and over again, Augustine insists that- as the Church has always believed- if we were as ‘totally’ depraved as Calvin alleged, then we would cease to exist altogether; this is because our very being is enjoyment of God’s great goodness.

And here are the words of St. Augustine (a view that although human nature was wounded through original sin it was not totally depraved):

"And it was made clear to me that all things are good even if they are corrupted…all that is corrupted is thereby deprived of good. But if they are deprived of all good, they will cease to be… if they are deprived of all good, they will cease to exist. So long as they are, therefore, they are good. Therefore, whatsoever is, is good. For good to be diminished is evil; still, however much it is diminished, something must remain of its original nature as long as it exists at all… For no matter what kind or however insignificant a thing may be, the good which is its nature cannot be destroyed without the thing itself being destroyed. And even if the corruption is not arrested, it still does not cease having some good of which it cannot be further deprived. And if the corruption comes to be total and entire, there is no good left because it is no longer an entity at all. Wherefore corruption cannot consume the good without also consuming the thing itself.

vocatum.blogspot.com/2008/05/augustines-problem-with-total-depravity.html

 

[josie_L]

my point is when you understand the distinctions they draw … it’s a matter of nuance (it’s not as substantial as you infer). As I said b4 the differences between confessional protestants and Catholics have narrowed over the last several centuries. I guess conflict has refined and sharpened the doctrine of both sides?

I love irony …

Francis, I don’t get you. I’m not trying to be mean here I’m only trying to point out differences in our theology (although to an extent they are similar they are not so similar that these differences are of no consequence). And what do you mean by “irony”?

 

[SemperReformada]

The first element of John Calvin’s classic TULIP summary is the idea of total depravity. The proposal includes the following; human rebellion against God is total, and apart from the grace of God there is no delight in the holiness of God, and there is no glad submission to the sovereign authority of God; in this total rebellion everything humanity does is sin; furthermore, man’s inability to desist from this rebellion, to submit to God and do good is total; and this rebellion is totally deserving of eternal punishment.

Josie,

Sorry to have confused you.

Other than some pretty strong language in the above section of your post, what is objectionable to you?

I would think you would only object to maybe one or two statements.